Canadian students express support their U.S. counterparts with solidarity rallies

While we cannot change what the US is doing, we can appreciate that their society is dominated by a capital class that cares more about the profits from guns than the children of other classes there.

I don't really think that "profits" from gun sales are really why the U.S. insists on their right to 100-round magazines, "cop killer" rounds and bump stocks. I very much doubt that the vast majority of supporters of laissez-faire gun laws own stock in Smith and Wesson. This is just a huge, strange thing for them. Maybe it was "taming the west". Maybe it was literally originating from a revolution against an untrustworthy government. Maybe it was some dumbass "Founding Fathers" choosing to protect every citizen's right to own a single-shot, muzzle-loading, black-powder musket that could seriously wound a rabbit at 30 yards. But the closest Canadian equivalent would be our government proposing to ban hockey.

While we cannot change what the US is doing, we can appreciate that their society is dominated by a capital class that cares more about the profits from guns than the children of other classes there.

I don't really think that "profits" from gun sales are really why the U.S. insists on their right to 100-round magazines, "cop killer" rounds and bump stocks. I very much doubt that the vast majority of supporters of laissez-faire gun laws own stock in Smith and Wesson. This is just a huge, strange thing for them. Maybe it was "taming the west". Maybe it was literally originating from a revolution against an untrustworthy government. Maybe it was some dumbass "Founding Fathers" choosing to protect every citizen's right to own a single-shot, muzzle-loading, black-powder musket that could seriously wound a rabbit at 30 yards. But the closest Canadian equivalent would be our government proposing to ban hockey.

I see. But evidently the NRA has only 5 million members across the U.S. If the upper tiers of the NRA are all busy enjoying that luxury, that only leaves about 4.99 million NRA members to politically punish any representative who even dares to consider maybe restricting bump stocks.

If it were as simple as just "buying" politics then Bill Gates would be a two-termer, and Elon Musk would be having his presidential portrait painted. You can buy access to politicians, and you can buy ads, but sooner or later you need to convince politicians that you control the votes that in turn control their careers. So I'm still having trouble believing that the profits on sales of guns are what's driving the success of the pro-gun side. I think there are a hell of a lot more pro-gun voters who earn $0.00 on the sale of every gun than there are Smith and Wesson stockholders or pork-barrelling politicians.

Can anyone even guess how much money the gun and ammunition industry is worth in the US? How many millions of jobs it creates? There is a lot of money tied up there. Teenagers aren't exactly known for donating large sums of money to political campaigns.

Ban AR15s? That would have an insignificant at best impact on shooting stats in the US.

Less than 6% of gun murders in the US are commited with rifles per year. AR15 is a sub-catagory of of those rifles so probably not even half of 6%.

In 2017 there were less than 20 school shooting deaths. And half of those were with with AR15 rifles. So the plan is to ban thee iconic "All American" gun (worth billions) to hopefully effect a 3% murder rate (or approx 10 school students a year)? That's low hanging fruit that's doomed to succeed.

The school shooer in Flordia:

-20 calls were made to the police (including FBI) warning them this kid was threatening to shoot up a school.

-Police called to the shooters house 39 times.

-He put a gun to someones head, killed local small animals, threatened suicide, threatened to kill people and posted on social media he wanted to be a professional school shooter.

Think him not having access to an "AR15" would have prevented him from doing anything? Nope. He would have found another gun, or made a bomb, or used a truck to murder people. Yea maybe a truck would have smooshed 10 people instead of shooting 17.

Teenagers should be protesting the police departments royally fucking up constantly, and then making ALL guns harder for people like this to obtain.

The Nebraska-based First National Bank of Omaha and Enterprise Car Rental are reviewing their relationship with organization that lobbies against gun control in the United States, despite repeated mass shootings.

It seems to me that this thread title has been changed a few times, so the goalposts of discussion keep shifting. Maybe we should cut to the chase and entitle this thread, "All decent Canadians must join the U.S. protest against American gun control laws on April 20th?"

I see. But evidently the NRA has only 5 million members across the U.S. If the upper tiers of the NRA are all busy enjoying that luxury, that only leaves about 4.99 million NRA members to politically punish any representative who even dares to consider maybe restricting bump stocks.

If it were as simple as just "buying" politics then Bill Gates would be a two-termer, and Elon Musk would be having his presidential portrait painted. You can buy access to politicians, and you can buy ads, but sooner or later you need to convince politicians that you control the votes that in turn control their careers. So I'm still having trouble believing that the profits on sales of guns are what's driving the success of the pro-gun side. I think there are a hell of a lot more pro-gun voters who earn $0.00 on the sale of every gun than there are Smith and Wesson stockholders or pork-barrelling politicians.

Bill Gates would be president? Although not quite, Donald Trump is. I’ll just chalk it up to unintended irony.

U.S. politics runs on donations. NRA donations run Republican politics at least.

U.S. politics runs on donations. NRA donations run Republican politics at least.

That explains why Republicans might feel obligated to run on a "the more guns the better" platform, but it's still not explaining why so many voters support it. Without those voters it would be a big waste of NRA money.

U.S. politics runs on donations. NRA donations run Republican politics at least.

That explains why Republicans might feel obligated to run on a "the more guns the better" platform, but it's still not explaining why so many voters support it. Without those voters it would be a big waste of NRA money.

This is not a simple question, however, Steve M. wrote what I think was a good analysis on his blog. The conclusion:

Steve M. wrote:

Most gun control advocates -- even the most outspoken teenage survivors of Parkland -- just want certain weapons banned and higher bars for gun owners to clear. They want -- we want -- what even large numbers of gun owners want:

According to data collected by Pew, the majority of gun owners, 77 percent, advocate ending the [gun-show background-check] loophole....

According to the Pew poll, among gun owners, 89 percent support a proposal that would prevent the mentally ill from purchasing a gun, 82 percent support barring those on the no-fly list from buying guns, 54 percent support a federal gun sales database, and 48 percent support a ban on assault-style weapons such as AR-15s.

The NRA and the politicians it backs are blocking all of these broadly popular proposals at the national level. But gun owners won't quit the NRA in protest of its absolutism, or vote against Republican politicians who legislate according to absolutist NRA principles, for a simple reason: They think we want to take all their guns. They hear this regularly from Republican politicians, from conservative pundits, and from the NRA itself. They believe it. And it's as crazy a conspiracy theory as anything said about crisis actors in Parkland or Soros involvement in the anti-gun youth movement.

Perhaps gun owners see the futility of targeting specific subsets of firearms (AR15s) in order to try and make a stastistical change in violence or murder where firearms are present.

If you're talking about homicides on a national level then murders committed with AR15s would account for 1-3% of firearm murders.

If you're talking school shootings then AR15s seem to be used in about 40%-50% of the shootings, often in conjunction with handguns. On average school shootings account for 10-15 deaths per year.

When the government/politicians talk about about banning "Assault Weapons" it becomes polarizing due to how ambigious the term is. If you use New York States definition of Assault Weapons (which I believe may have been the previous assault weapon ban that expired) it encompasses thousands of styles of modern and popular guns, as well as ones dating back to WW2. Screw a plastic grimp into a wooden stock of a WW1 bolt action rifle and it becomes an "assault weapon"

U.S. politics runs on donations. NRA donations run Republican politics at least.

That explains why Republicans might feel obligated to run on a "the more guns the better" platform, but it's still not explaining why so many voters support it. Without those voters it would be a big waste of NRA money.

"So many voters support it..." Remind me when there was a referendum on any kind of gun control? Properly worded, and with advertising banned, it might well end guns in the U.S. But that's the kind of freedom and democracy that the billionaires and their purchased Democrat and Republican mouthpieces would never allow. Would be interesting to see the results in Canada as well.

U.S. politics runs on donations. NRA donations run Republican politics at least.

That explains why Republicans might feel obligated to run on a "the more guns the better" platform, but it's still not explaining why so many voters support it. Without those voters it would be a big waste of NRA money.

They don’t. But most don’t support financial deregulation, tax cuts for the 1% and weakening environmental laws, and that has taken place as well. Financial resources can distort democracy.

But they do hold regular elections for everyone from the POTUS to their judges, to the Sheriff and the dogcatcher, and evidently those candidates who swear fealty to the Second Amendment seem to receive support, and those who so much as gently whisper about thinking about studying the possibility of someday phasing in a ban bullets designed to pierce kevlar vests do not.

Quote:

Financial resources can distort democracy.

Freakonomics addresses that fallacy.

How much money do you think it would take to elect a President on a platform of banning guns? How about on a platform of not banning them?

You seem to think that people who want something, and who can choose that something at the ballot box, will instead choose whatever the slickest television commercial says to.

But gun owners won't quit the NRA in protest of its absolutism, or vote against Republican politicians who legislate according to absolutist NRA principles, for a simple reason: They think we want to take all their guns.

That’s just a misunderstanding of how the U.S. political system works. When it comes to legislation, money talks and a talks far louder than the a grouping of average citizens. A determined minority with financial resources can certainly stop legislation, and if strong enough, as the example of the NRA in Florida I posted twice on this thread, it can pass legislation.

Moreover, economists have enough trouble getting their own discipline right.

When it comes to legislation, money talks and a talks far louder than the a grouping of average citizens. A determined minority with financial resources can certainly stop legislation, and if strong enough, as the example of the NRA in Florida I posted twice on this thread, it can pass legislation.

Why are the voters who you believe are in favour of gun control contributing money to the war chest of the NRA in order to help the NRA deny them what you believe they want?

Good informative blog MM and it would be healthy to have a gun amnesty at least in urban areas. So yes urbanites need to give up their guns, and maybe the police should do so as well.

--------------------

These students need Canada's support and as well it's heartening to see so many business enterprises cutting their NRA connections.

NRA lashes out at boycott movement as United, Delta and other corporations cut ties

While it’s unclear what effect the corporate snubs will have on the NRA, they have given the nascent #BoycottNRA a string of rapid, prominent victories and exposed vulnerabilities in a gun rights lobby that had seemed untouchable before 17 people — most of them students — were gunned down last week at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

The NRA claims 5 million members and takes in tens of millions of dollars each year through supporters, which it uses to fight gun regulations in the name of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees Americans the right to bear arms.

The group has faced public anger before — after the massacre of schoolchildren at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012, for example. But it has always fought back against pushes for new gun laws, and efforts to significantly restrict firearms inevitably die out as public fury over the shootings ebbs.

But outrage over the Parkland shooting — sustained in part by politically active teenagers who survived the massacre — has shown no signs of fading. Police say a former student killed 17 people with a legally purchased semiautomatic rifle, one of at least 10 guns he owned.

The Women’s March’s Youth EMPOWER group is planning a national school walkout on March 14, 2018, according to the group’s website. At 10 a.m. in every time zone, organizers are encouraging teachers, students, administrators, parents and allies to walk out for 17 minutes — one for every person killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

March 24, 2018: March For Our Lives:

On March 24, 2018, student organizers, including those from Parkland, are planning March For Our Lives, a march in Washington, D.C. to call for school safety and gun control.

“The mission and focus of March For Our Lives is to demand that a comprehensive and effective bill be immediately brought before Congress to address these gun issues,” according to their website. “No special interest group, no political agenda is more critical than timely passage of legislation to effectively address the gun violence issues that are rampant in our country.”

April 20, 2018: National High School Walkout:

A growing movement titled #NationalSchoolWalkout is being called for by Connecticut student Lane Murdock and others. Murdock lives just 20 minutes away from Sandy Hook Elementary School, according to NBC News. In December 2012, 20 students and six staff members were gunned down at Sandy Hook.

The plan calls for high school students to walk out on April 20, the 19th anniversary of the Columbine shooting. No time has been specified yet. The plans are currently being housed on Twitter along with a Change.org petition page that has over 76,000 signatures as of Tuesday morning.

Perhaps gun owners see the futility of targeting specific subsets of firearms (AR15s) in order to try and make a stastistical change in violence or murder where firearms are present.

If you're talking about homicides on a national level then murders committed with AR15s would account for 1-3% of firearm murders.

If you're talking school shootings then AR15s seem to be used in about 40%-50% of the shootings, often in conjunction with handguns. On average school shootings account for 10-15 deaths per year.

When the government/politicians talk about about banning "Assault Weapons" it becomes polarizing due to how ambigious the term is. If you use New York States definition of Assault Weapons (which I believe may have been the previous assault weapon ban that expired) it encompasses thousands of styles of modern and popular guns, as well as ones dating back to WW2. Screw a plastic grimp into a wooden stock of a WW1 bolt action rifle and it becomes an "assault weapon"

Let's take this logic a little further shall we?

So mass shootings are only a fraction of the killings compared to other sorts of gun crime.

Suicide, Kidney disease and the flu is only a fraction of the deaths of Cancer and heart disease. Using this logic we should not bother preventing these since they cause so much fewer losses of life.

Now of course the comment about gun nuts deflecting applies to this. We are talking about an epidemic of mass shootings killing many people. This post seeks to deflect and move the conversation to all gun deaths in the completely ridiculous assumption that bad stats when it comes to other gun deaths somehow lets the US gun racket off the hook of regulation.

Then there is the comment 10-15 deaths per year in gun shooting. You cannot be too cynical about how the poster used this stat. He suggests that these are just not enough to worry about -- even though the entire rest of the world does not seem to have this problem. These are only a couple hundred since the year 2000 so why care? But let's unpack this a little further. This little stat breaks gun violence down -- first you only consider mass shootings and then exclude any non schools to get the number down to a shall we say tolerable level as far as this poster is concerned. He ignores, wilfully the fact that the regulation that could severely reduce shcool shootings would severely reduce mass shootings more generally. And the regulation that would reduce mass shootings would also reduce gun suicides. Paladins use of statistics here are an example of why people say there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Then while using distinctions he complains how fuzzy they are. Hmm.

While NRA types work to prevent the US even studing the issue they are the first to complain, that the information is sparse -- the way they want to keep it. As for those on the side of the people being murdered, the need for distinctions seems less clear. Often All types of assualt and semi-automatic gins are give a category -- rather than this game of reduce to one type and then to one brand and then one type of crime in one setting and say -- "well that's not so bad is it?"

"Results suggest assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2–12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%) and 13–16% of guns used in murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics together generally account for 22 to 36% of crime guns, with some estimates upwards of 40% for cases involving serious violence including murders of police. Assault weapons and other high-capacity semiautomatics appear to be used in a higher share of firearm mass murders (up to 57% in total), though data on this issue are very limited. Trend analyses also indicate that high-capacity semiautomatics have grown from 33 to 112% as a share of crime guns since the expiration of the federal ban—a trend that has coincided with recent growth in shootings nationwide."

Oh and semi-automatic and assualt rifles together are over half and increasing when it comes to mass shootings. Also mass shootings are increasing as well so taking an average going back a couple decades is hardly the point.

Parden me -- the point is obfuscation of what has become clear to many.

In 2017 in the US there were 15 deaths from "school shooters" shooting at school. Not mass shootings per say(though some were), but school shootings. Mass shootings are defined as shootings resulting in 3 or more deaths.

Rifles account for 5% or less of all firearm related homicides in the US. An AR15 being a sub-class of rifle would probably count for 1-2% of firearm used in overall homicides. Looking at the 15 (average) school shootings a year an AR15 appears to be present in 40-50% of the shootings (which is significant IMO)

I haven't look at the stats yet but I'm guessing mass shootings would see a similar percent. In a fair number of shootings with an AR15 present a pistol is also present and data on which type killed which victim isn't present (that I've found)

Putting that together we could guess that AR15s accounted for 7-10 deaths from school shootings in 2017.

Assault Weapon is simply too ambigious a term to accurately account for. As I pointed out in New York State, for example, you could take a plastic grip (imagine a plastic hot dog) and duct tape it to a WW1 bolt action rifle. Now it's technically classified as an Assault Weapon. Assault Weapon translates into anything someone thinks looks scary or more dangerous.

Handguns continute to account for the overwealming number of firearm homicides in the USA. Something like 9'000 out of 11'000 (gun) death yearly, but that goes largely unnoticed and unreported in the news. Why? Because an Ar15 is iconic, it's a symbol.

Quote:

He ignores, wilfully the fact that the regulation that could severely reduce shcool shootings would severely reduce mass shootings more generally.

Typical example of words being put in to someones mouth. I'm quite FOR regulation of all firearms, but nice try.

I don't think it's a right I think it's a privilage. I support gun owners requiring a state-regulated liscence. Significant background checks including mental health AND, much like our own system, speaking to ones spouse or ex-spouse before allowing someone a liscence. I think the reason why we so see few deaths with pistols and AR15s in canada (comparatively speaking) is because of our current system where you can't buy, sell or trade either of those without a liscence OR without vetting from the RCMP.

Incidentally, or interestingly, there are guns that are esentially the exact same as the AR15 in Canada (more modern, updated versions) which aren't as regulated and controled, that I can goto my local gas station and buy on the spot with no RCMP involvement, which aren't being used in crimes or murders in Canada at all.

Our system isn't perfect but it does work. Gun control is important.

Talking about me in 3rd person like I'm on trial is weird but if that's what you need to get a possy going then float your boat ;)

If you want to talk about deflection though, then it's this NRA nonsense. The police had what, 39 calls about the Flordia shooter? More? Attended calls to his place dozens of times. He assaulted his mom and brother. Reports of him killing small animals, self-harming himself. Him threatening class mates. Him, using his real name, going online and threatening to shoot up a school or talking about being a professional school shooter. 18 police reports were sitting in the Sherif's office collecting dust NOT being properly filed.

The police screwed up over and over and over. The only way they could have fucked up more is if they sold this guy a gun and ammunition. He should have never been able to buy a gun so instead of high fiving each other because Enterprise won't discount NRA members anymore the US should be figuring out a new system that will track violent offenders (even if they're not charged) and making a better system. Police reporting system needs revamped and significant disciplinary action against police departments that screw this stuff up. The US national background check needs to grow to encompass catching potential shooters.

In 2017 in the US there were 15 deaths from "school shooters" shooting at school. Not mass shootings per say(though some were), but school shootings. Mass shootings are defined as shootings resulting in 3 or more deaths.

Rifles account for 5% or less of all firearm related homicides in the US. An AR15 being a sub-class of rifle would probably count for 1-2% of firearm used in overall homicides. Looking at the 15 (average) school shootings a year an AR15 appears to be present in 40-50% of the shootings (which is significant IMO)

I haven't look at the stats yet but I'm guessing mass shootings would see a similar percent. In a fair number of shootings with an AR15 present a pistol is also present and data on which type killed which victim isn't present (that I've found)

Putting that together we could guess that AR15s accounted for 7-10 deaths from school shootings in 2017.

Assault Weapon is simply too ambigious a term to accurately account for. As I pointed out in New York State, for example, you could take a plastic grip (imagine a plastic hot dog) and duct tape it to a WW1 bolt action rifle. Now it's technically classified as an Assault Weapon. Assault Weapon translates into anything someone thinks looks scary or more dangerous.

Handguns continute to account for the overwealming number of firearm homicides in the USA. Something like 9'000 out of 11'000 (gun) death yearly, but that goes largely unnoticed and unreported in the news. Why? Because an Ar15 is iconic, it's a symbol.

Quote:

He ignores, wilfully the fact that the regulation that could severely reduce shcool shootings would severely reduce mass shootings more generally.

Typical example of words being put in to someones mouth. I'm quite FOR regulation of all firearms, but nice try.

I don't think it's a right I think it's a privilage. I support gun owners requiring a state-regulated liscence. Significant background checks including mental health AND, much like our own system, speaking to ones spouse or ex-spouse before allowing someone a liscence. I think the reason why we so see few deaths with pistols and AR15s in canada (comparatively speaking) is because of our current system where you can't buy, sell or trade either of those without a liscence OR without vetting from the RCMP.

Incidentally, or interestingly, there are guns that are esentially the exact same as the AR15 in Canada (more modern, updated versions) which aren't as regulated and controled, that I can goto my local gas station and buy on the spot with no RCMP involvement, which aren't being used in crimes or murders in Canada at all.

Our system isn't perfect but it does work. Gun control is important.

Talking about me in 3rd person like I'm on trial is weird but if that's what you need to get a possy going then float your boat ;)

If you want to talk about deflection though, then it's this NRA nonsense. The police had what, 39 calls about the Flordia shooter? More? Attended calls to his place dozens of times. He assaulted his mom and brother. Reports of him killing small animals, self-harming himself. Him threatening class mates. Him, using his real name, going online and threatening to shoot up a school or talking about being a professional school shooter. 18 police reports were sitting in the Sherif's office collecting dust NOT being properly filed.

The police screwed up over and over and over. The only way they could have fucked up more is if they sold this guy a gun and ammunition. He should have never been able to buy a gun so instead of high fiving each other because Enterprise won't discount NRA members anymore the US should be figuring out a new system that will track violent offenders (even if they're not charged) and making a better system. Police reporting system needs revamped and significant disciplinary action against police departments that screw this stuff up. The US national background check needs to grow to encompass catching potential shooters.

Come on. The point is that he was legally able to get a gun and the President signed a year ago an order to remove the regulations that Obama had put in to make it harder for an ill person to get one.

Other than preventing sick people from getting guns, and providing mental health care, what else were the FBI, Trump ciriticised supposed to do? Charge him with what he had not yet done? You say the police scrwed up but the laws giving them power were stripped away.

Now I spoke about you in the third person as a mark of disrespect becuase you are playing with statistics making straw man arguments. Nobody is claiming that handguns are not a problem. People are saying that assualt weapons are an easy thing to pull back on -- it is a compromise. Most asking for gun control would prefer better control on all firearms but ask for the most obvious.

So you say you want regulation -- list the specifc measures you are for. No deflection -- lay out what you think should be the regime. What regulation for all firearms or do you think that mental health checks and partner checks are all we need? What weapons do you think people should be able to buy? Should they be registered? If not then how do you track when they go missing and into the illegal trade?

Come on. The point is that he was legally able to get a gun and the President signed a year ago an order to remove the regulations that Obama had put in to make it harder for an ill person to get one.

Can you provide a source? I've actually never heard that but am interesting in reading it. If it's true about what Trump did then that's totally assinine and needs to be recinded.

Quote:

Other than preventing sick people from getting guns, and providing mental health care, what else were the FBI, Trump ciriticised supposed to do? Charge him with what he had not yet done? You say the police scrwed up but the laws giving them power were stripped away.

Charge him what what he had not done yet? He assaulted his mother and I believe brother. Assault is illegal. He threatened to shoot people, which again the state of Flordia is illegal. Threatening to shoot a school is also illegal, which he posted about on youtube under his own name. The FBI couldn't track him down after those threats were reported when he used his own name? After the police attended his place 40 some times? That's pretty stupid police work. The laws weren't stripped away from the police, Sean, they were lazy. Read up about the 18 reports sitting in Sherif Israel's office.

Quote:

Now I spoke about you in the third person as a mark of disrespect becuase you are playing with statistics making straw man arguments. Nobody is claiming that handguns are not a problem. People are saying that assualt weapons are an easy thing to pull back on -- it is a compromise. Most asking for gun control would prefer better control on all firearms but ask for the most obvious.

Showing someone disrespect isn't a reflection of their character but of you own.

I'm not playing with Stats Sean. If we're talking about this in a logical non-emotional manner than 15 deaths among 51 million students isn't what i would consider an epidemic. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see a single death. I have three children in school, this stuff is terrifying for me. I can't read the aftermath stories without tearing up and feeling sick. The US needs to get a handle on the sale of weapons.

Quote:

So you say you want regulation -- list the specifc measures you are for. No deflection -- lay out what you think should be the regime. What regulation for all firearms or do you think that mental health checks and partner checks are all we need? What weapons do you think people should be able to buy? Should they be registered? If not then how do you track when they go missing and into the illegal trade?

I'm happy to be candid with you about it but are we talking about the US or Canada? Canada already, in my opinion, has a pretty solid system for tracking the most statistically homicide related gun - pistols. I'd add all firearms to that system while relaxing where you can legally carry and use them.

US? Before anything they would need a national set of rules and regulations. Right now 50 states have 50 different rules on firearms. Some states you need a liscence to buy a gun, some you don't. Some states you can carry an AR15 to Mcdonalds, some you can't. The AR15 is what's cited the most but I'm telling you there are hundreds or thousands of other kinds of guns which are nearly identical to the AR15 (I have some) but aren't stereotypically used in shootings. Why? I'm going to guess it's a culture thing in that using an AR15 to shoot up a school or work place seems almost like the standard for lack of a better explination. Maybe there's also just so many of them floating around for cheap.

What happens if you ban AR15s in the states? Something else takes it's place. You could try banning ambigious assault weapons, but people will refuse to turn them in and no one is going to give them up and that's a whole different battle. Half of mass shootings in Canada in the last littlr while weren't with anything that might be classified as assault weapons.

I wouldn't know where to start guessing without a national level set of regulations to be honest.

While I say all guns could be registered in Canada there's an estimated 1.7 to 2 million long guns in Quebec, know how many of those were registered through Quebecs new long gun registry so far? 4000.

And some of the kids from Douglas High, the school of the shooting, began giving speeches and organizing a march for Saturday March 24. These kids, particularly Emma González, are quite notable for how media savvy they are. Emma gave a speech that got thousands of views on social media. A couple of other students likewise. Talk shows are picking up on this. I'm guessing that the march will be quite large, and perhaps the walkouts too. Anyway, it's worked out to be a series of escalating actions, starting with a brief walkout, then a rally, and then a full day walkout.

In society today an often automatic reaction seems to be to start screaming about boycots. Try to force a company to do something by threatening them monitairily and with negative press and attention. The worst of this is of course doxxing individuals.

Companies are being pressured to cut ties with the NRA. Some are caving, others are not. Armchair advocacy or whatever it's called.

In Delta airlines case they cut ties with the NRA but it's coming at a price and I think now they're wondering if it's worth it. Georgia lawmakers just killed a tax deal designed to benefit Delta Airlines to the tune of $50 million dollars and the lieutenant governor said he will kill any future tax benefit for them until they reverse their decision.

Come on. The point is that he was legally able to get a gun and the President signed a year ago an order to remove the regulations that Obama had put in to make it harder for an ill person to get one.

Can you provide a source? I've actually never heard that but am interesting in reading it. If it's true about what Trump did then that's totally assinine and needs to be recinded.

Quote:

Other than preventing sick people from getting guns, and providing mental health care, what else were the FBI, Trump ciriticised supposed to do? Charge him with what he had not yet done? You say the police scrwed up but the laws giving them power were stripped away.

Charge him what what he had not done yet? He assaulted his mother and I believe brother. Assault is illegal. He threatened to shoot people, which again the state of Flordia is illegal. Threatening to shoot a school is also illegal, which he posted about on youtube under his own name. The FBI couldn't track him down after those threats were reported when he used his own name? After the police attended his place 40 some times? That's pretty stupid police work. The laws weren't stripped away from the police, Sean, they were lazy. Read up about the 18 reports sitting in Sherif Israel's office.

Quote:

Now I spoke about you in the third person as a mark of disrespect becuase you are playing with statistics making straw man arguments. Nobody is claiming that handguns are not a problem. People are saying that assualt weapons are an easy thing to pull back on -- it is a compromise. Most asking for gun control would prefer better control on all firearms but ask for the most obvious.

Showing someone disrespect isn't a reflection of their character but of you own.

I'm not playing with Stats Sean. If we're talking about this in a logical non-emotional manner than 15 deaths among 51 million students isn't what i would consider an epidemic. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see a single death. I have three children in school, this stuff is terrifying for me. I can't read the aftermath stories without tearing up and feeling sick. The US needs to get a handle on the sale of weapons.

Quote:

So you say you want regulation -- list the specifc measures you are for. No deflection -- lay out what you think should be the regime. What regulation for all firearms or do you think that mental health checks and partner checks are all we need? What weapons do you think people should be able to buy? Should they be registered? If not then how do you track when they go missing and into the illegal trade?

I'm happy to be candid with you about it but are we talking about the US or Canada? Canada already, in my opinion, has a pretty solid system for tracking the most statistically homicide related gun - pistols. I'd add all firearms to that system while relaxing where you can legally carry and use them.

US? Before anything they would need a national set of rules and regulations. Right now 50 states have 50 different rules on firearms. Some states you need a liscence to buy a gun, some you don't. Some states you can carry an AR15 to Mcdonalds, some you can't. The AR15 is what's cited the most but I'm telling you there are hundreds or thousands of other kinds of guns which are nearly identical to the AR15 (I have some) but aren't stereotypically used in shootings. Why? I'm going to guess it's a culture thing in that using an AR15 to shoot up a school or work place seems almost like the standard for lack of a better explination. Maybe there's also just so many of them floating around for cheap.

What happens if you ban AR15s in the states? Something else takes it's place. You could try banning ambigious assault weapons, but people will refuse to turn them in and no one is going to give them up and that's a whole different battle. Half of mass shootings in Canada in the last littlr while weren't with anything that might be classified as assault weapons.

I wouldn't know where to start guessing without a national level set of regulations to be honest.

While I say all guns could be registered in Canada there's an estimated 1.7 to 2 million long guns in Quebec, know how many of those were registered through Quebecs new long gun registry so far? 4000.

There was a scandal last week as people sought out pictures as Trump had many for his signings. In this case the White House refused to release the picture when asked (after the shooting). This was not a Presidential directive. It followed a vote by the GOP House and Senate. All of the GOP have blood on their hands.

Showing disrespect is not a sign of a person's character -- that's just trite. If the disrespect is appropriate it is legitimate. You were parsing stats in a way that did not deserve respect -- one model of gun, one place of shooting as if the nightclub and schools are not part of the same problem. As if the gun used in the nightclub a semi-automatic and then AR-15 are not both of the same problem. Splitting those stats and saying see not that many deserved a less than complimentary reaction.

Last week congress was talking about puting warning lables on Tide pods so teenagers wouldn't eat them. This week we should listen to teenagers about gun control.

Classic right wing mindset. Millenials are all idiots,pay no mind to them. Right.

As for sympathy and solidarity with Americans? Not until the day they realize the Second Ammendment was not talking about military grade assault rifles to be sold to absolutely anyone,no questions asked.

Thanks for the link. When I ask it's not to try and be annoying but rather get the exact story and context you're talking about. I'll check it out!

I respect your views on showing disrespect even if I don't agree ;)

I mention the school shootings for context because the media gives off the impression that kids in school are dying by the dozens. I'm not intentionally overlooking other mass shootings, it just didn't seem included in the topic since this seems centered around the Florida shooting and school shootings. I think you'll find we agree about the bigger picture more than you might think. Guns shouldn't be a free for all because Merica! The world is a different place than it was 200 years ago, or even 50 years ago. 100% my opinion is biased as a gun owner and someone who first shot a gun at 5. It's also biased as a parent. I tend to tune out views that all guns should be banned the same way I tune out views that people should be allowed to buy guns without a liscence or background check.

Is right wing also the mindset of someone who thinks gun owners should be murdered with AR15s to prove a point?

Quote:

Millenials are all idiots,pay no mind to them. Right.

Well I'm reading teenagers are super smart with important things to say and we should support lowering the voting age to 16.

But also teenagers can't be trusted with guns so we should raise the age they can buy guns to 21 and we should treat teenagers like juveniles when charged with crimes because their brains aren't fully developed yet.

I think I posted a link to that article a couple of years ago in one of the U.S. threads. It seems to me that it is much more than "an opinion". It is rather a very persuasive historical case for the propostion that the second amendment was included in the constitution to ensure that the slave states could maintain control of their property. It cites primary sources, particulary the ratification debates, quoting figures such as Patrick Henry and James Madison. If it is merely an opinion, it is one which is given with very strong supporting evidence.